What scientists do not see in Antarctica can be just as significant as what they observe. This is the conclusion of a new study led by Dr Colin Southwell of the Australian Antarctic Division. It shows that effective protection of Antarctic seabirds depends on clearly distinguishing between the true absence of a species and simple lack of knowledge.
For decades, researchers have mapped seabird breeding sites to monitor populations, detect changes in species distribution and designate protected areas. However, a look at the scientific literature reveals a problem: almost exclusively, only the presence of animals is documented. Whether a site was actively surveyed and nothing was found, or whether no survey took place at all, usually remains unclear.
“You might see nothing because the animal isn’t there, because it is well hidden, or because you didn’t search everywhere,” Southwell explains. This uncertainty has consequences. Large, conspicuous species such as penguins appear disproportionately often in datasets, while smaller or more cryptic species are scarcely recorded. This distorts the overall picture of Antarctic biodiversity and can lead to poor environmental management decisions.
For the study, the international research team analysed data spanning around 100 years. In addition to scientific publications, the dataset included unpublished reports, archival material, handwritten field notes and oral accounts. The researchers examined breeding areas of eight seabird species along roughly 5,000 kilometres of East Antarctic coastline, as well as regions extending far inland.
The analysis reveals clear gaps. Most observations come from areas near permanently occupied coastal research stations. In addition, the focus is strongly on Adélie penguins, which are considered indicator species for the impacts of fisheries and climate change. In contrast, there is little reliable information on species such as Wilson’s storm petrel or the snow petrel, probably because they are well camouflaged, breed in rock crevices and favour hard-to-reach areas.
These knowledge gaps are not merely an academic issue. Aircraft traffic can significantly disturb breeding seabirds. If regions with insufficient data are mistakenly considered “bird-free,” there is a risk of unintended disturbance. The Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) also bases its decisions on krill fisheries on data about the distribution of predators such as seabirds. Incomplete surveys could lead to underestimation of actual populations.
The researchers’ conclusion is clear: future monitoring programmes must document not only where seabirds breed, but also where targeted searches were conducted—and where knowledge is lacking. Perfect data will never exist in Antarctica. But clearly acknowledging uncertainty allows conservation measures to be planned more effectively and significantly reduces risks to sensitive ecosystems.
Rosamaria Kubny, PolarJournal